America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation

April 2010

Peter D. Blair

National Research Council

Key Forces Shaping U.S. Energy Situation• Increasing world energy demand, particularly in

developing nations, especially China, tighten markets.

• U.S. oil imports comprise nearly 60 percent of the U.S. oil use, up from 40 percent in 1990—alternatives are limited in the short run, especially in transportation.

• Energy price volatility has been unprecedented in last two years, continuing to complicate market decisions.

• Long term reliability of traditional energy sources, especially oil, is uncertain and will continue to be so.

• Mounting concerns about global climate change, largely from burning fossil fuels that provide most world energy, are increasingly a significant factor in energy decisions.

• U.S. Energy infrastructure is massive and slowly adapts to change and is increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorism.

• 2

Key Objectives of America’s Energy Future (AEF) “Foundational Study” (Phase 1)

• Provide transparent and authoritative estimates of the current contributions and future potential of existing and new energy supply and demand technologies, impacts and costs, focusing on the next two decades.

• Resolve conflicting analyses.To facilitate a productive national policydialogue about the nation’s energy future

• 3

America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities,

Risks, and TradeoffsJuly 2009

October 2008 December 9, 2009

http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy

May 20, 2009 June 15, 2009

• 4

America’s Energy Future Study Committee• Harold T. Shapiro - (Chair), Princeton University

• Mark S. Wrighton - (Vice Chair), Washington University

• John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society

• Allen J. Bard, University of Texas at Austin • Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest • W. F. Brinkman**, Princeton University • Douglas M. Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc. • Steven Chu*, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

• Christine A. Ehlig-Economides, Texas A&M University

• Robert W. Fri, Resources for the Future, Inc. • Charles Goodman, Southern Company (Ret.)• John B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Lester B. Lave, Carnegie Mellon University

• James J. Markowsky***, American Electric Power (Ret.)

• Richard A. Meserve, Carnegie Institution of Washington

• Warren F. Miller, Jr.****, Texas A&M University-College Station

• Franklin M. Orr, Jr., Stanford University• Lawrence T. Papay, PQR, LLC • Aristides A.N. Patrinos, Synthetic Genomics

• Michael P. Ramage, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering (Ret.)

• Maxine L. Savitz*****, Honeywell Inc. (Ret.)• Robert H. Socolow, Princeton University • James L. Sweeney, Stanford University • G. David Tilman, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

• C. Michael Walton, University of Texas at Austin

• 25 members (80% academy members)• Expertise spans science, technology & economics

*Resigned, January 20, 2009 upon confirmation as U.S. Secretary of Energy**Confirmed as U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Director of Office of Science, June 20, 2009***Nominated as U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy****Nominated as U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy*****Appointed President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)

• 5

America’s Energy Future: Project Structure

•63 committee & panel members

•22 consultants•12 principal staff•dozens of workshop participants

•62 reviewers of 5 reports

Phase I

Committee Subgroups Additional Study Panels

RenewableElectric Power Panel

Phase II

Energy Efficiency Panel

Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and

Biomass

Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United

States

The National Academies Summit on America's Energy Future

Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels

Panel

Reports

America's Energy Future: Technology and Transformation

Electricity from Renewable Resources

Electric Power Transmission & Distribution

Reference Technology Scenarios

Committee on America's Energy Future

Energy Efficiency

Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas

Nuclear Power

Renewable Energy

Alternative Fuels

• 6

America’s Energy Future Project Sponsorship

To minimize any perception of bias, a broad range of sponsors was engaged:

• U.S. Department of Energy• Kavli and Keck Foundations• Dow Chemical, General Electric, Intel, General Motors, and BP

• The National Academies

• 7

Basic Concerns/Motivations: AEF Point of Departure

● Environmental concerns emanating from burning fossil fuels with inadequate accounting for environmental externalities not captured in energy markets.

● National security concerns emanating from falling domestic production of petroleum, dependence on fragile economic supply chains, vulnerability of the electric power grid and transportation sector, and issues of nuclear safety and proliferation.

● Economic competitiveness in the face of volatile prices for energy supplies and uncertainties that surround energy and commodity supply chains.

• 8

Initial Conditions: U.S. Energy Sector

● The U.S. is a large and not very efficient user of energy.● Dividends available by increasing energy efficiency

● 85% of our energy is created through the burning of fossil fuels

using traditional technologies.● Contributes to a very serious environmental problem

● Much of the U.S. energy sector physical assets are old and

deteriorating.

● T&D system needs upgrade for growth and modernization

● Nuclear plants constructed largely in the 1970’s and 1980’s

● Coal plants are aging, inefficient and environmentally suspect

● Domestic petroleum reserves being depleted

● Transportation sector is almost fully dependent on petroleum,

much of which is imported and the worldwide demand is

likely to grow faster than worldwide reserves.• 9

AEF “Global” Conclusion

The only way to meet the concerns identified given our initial conditions is to embark on a sustained effort to transform the manner in which we produce and consume energy.

Transforming the Energy Sector

The AEF committee carefully considered some of the critical technological options (including their costs and limitations) that might be deployed in pursuing a transformation of the energy sector that would meet the identified economic, environmental and national security concerns.

• 10

Technology Options Considered:

● Energy efficiency

● Alternative transportation fuels

● Renewable electric power generation

● Natural gas and advanced coal-fired power generation and CO2 capture and storage

● Nuclear power

● Electric power transmission, distribution, control and storageOptions Not Considered:

● Conservation—lifestyle changes

● Improvements in exploration, extraction and transportation of primary energy sources.

● Fuller assessment of world wide primary energy resources

NOTE: Potential contributions from technology options are addressed on a technology by technology basis; the committee did not conduct an integrated assessment or forecast of market competition and adoption.

• 11

Finding 1: Potential for Transformational Change With a sustained national commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy-efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy-supply and end-use technologies.

“Bucket 1” “Bucket 2” “Bucket 3”

2008 2020 2035 2040 2050

• 12

Finding 2: Energy Efficiency Potential The deployment of existing energy-efficiency technologies is the nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy, especially over the next decade.

15 Percent (15-17 Quads) by 2020

30 Percent (32-35 Quads) by 2030

2008 2020 2035 2040 2050

NOTE: Even greater savings would be possible with more aggressive policies and incentives.

• 13

Potential Electricity Savings in Commercial and Residential Buildings, 2020 and 2030

• 14

Finding 3: Electricity Supply OptionsThe United States has many promising

options for obtaining new supplies of electricity and changing its supply mix during the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage (CCS) and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at required scales.

However, the deployment of these new supply technologies is very likely to result in higher consumer prices for electricity.

Terawatt-hours

Renewables 340Coal CCS Retrofits

New Coal CCS

Nuclear Power UpratesNew Nuclear Power Plants

***conventional coal ****existing nuclear

NOTE: Estimates are not additive

63 6395

****

20000 1200

74 1800

800

Current

***

790

500

2035

1100

2008 2020

• 15

Prospects for Renewable Electric Power in the U.S.

• 16

Future of Coal with Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Retrofits and New Supply

• 17

Prospects for Nuclear Power in the U.S.

• 18

Levelized Cost of Electricity Generation

• 19

Demonstration of Technology at Scale

To clarify our options for the future, we must:

Failure to do this during the next decade would greatly restrict options to reduce the electricity sector’s CO2 emissions over succeeding decades. The urgency of getting started cannot be overstated.

● Demonstrate whether carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for sequestering carbon from the use of coal and natural gas to generate electricity are technically and commercially viable for application to both existing and new power plants—will require the construction of ~15-20 retrofit and new demonstration plants with CCS featuring a variety of feedstocks, generation technologies, carbon capture strategies, and geology before 2020.

● Demonstrate whether evolutionary nuclear technologies are commercially viable in the United States by constructing a suite of about five plants during the next decade.

• 20

Finding 4: Modernizing the Nation’s Power Grid Expansion and modernization of the nation’s electrical transmission and distribution systems (i.e., the power grid) are urgently needed. The AEF Committee estimates that it would cost (in

2007 dollars) $175 billion for expansion and $50 billion for modernization of the transmission system when they are done concurrently and $470 billion for expansion and $170 billion for modernization of the distribution system (again done concurrently).

• 21

Modernizing the Nation’s Electricity Grid

• Increasing congestion threatens reliability, reduces efficiency, and increases system vulnerability

• Transmission systems are subject to cascading failures

• Current systems have limited ability to accommodate new sources of supply, especially intermittent wind and solar energy sources, and sophisticated demand-side technologies.

• 22

Moving Toward the “Smart Grid”

• Deploy advanced communication and control to facilitate improved reliability and security

• Enable more efficient use of distributed generation sources over much wider areas

• Deploy advanced metering• Accommodate higher penetration of intermittent

sources such as wind and solar• Increase dispatchable energy storage• Utilize load management and improved ability to

control end-use demand

• 23

Finding 5: Continued Dependence on Oil Petroleum will continue to be an indispensable transportation fuel through at least 2035. EIA Reference Case through 2030

Total EnergyQuadrillion Btu per year

Cellulosic Ethanol 0Coal to Liquids with CCS 0Coal-and-biomass-to-Liquids 0

0.5 1.7

Current

0 30 2.5

Million Barrels of Gasoline Equivalent Per Day

20202008 2035

Transportation Million barrels of gasoline equivalent per day

Reminder: Estimates are not additive• 24

Reducing Dependence on Oil

• Options are limited for replacing petroleum or reducing petroleum use before 2020.

• More substantial longer-term options could begin to make contributions in the 2020-2035 timeframe.

• Options include: increasing vehicle efficiency, replacing imported petroleum with other liquid fuels produced from biomass and coal (with CO2 emissions similar to or less than that of oil-based fuels), and electrifying the light-duty fleet.

• 25

● About 550 million tons/year of biomass can be sustainably produced in the U.S. without incurring significant direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

● Cellulosic ethanol and other liquid fuels made from this biomass or from coal-biomass mixtures with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) reduce greenhouse U.S. gas emissions and increase U.S energy security.

● Timely commercial deployment may hinge on adoption of fuel standards and a carbon price, and on accelerated federal investment in essential technologies.

Prospects for Alternative Liquid Fuels in the U.S.

• 26

Finding 6: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are achievable over the next two to three decades through a portfolio approach involving the widespread deployment of energy efficiency; renewable energy; coal, natural gas, and biomass with CCS; and nuclear technologies.

Displacing a large proportion of petroleum as a transportation fuel to achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions over the next two to three decades will also require a portfolio approach involving the widespread deployment of energy efficiency technologies, alternative liquid fuels with low CO2 emissions, and light-duty vehicle electrification technologies.

• 27

Estimated Life-Cycle Greenhouse Emissions from Electricity Generation Technologies

• 28

Finding 7: Technology Research & Development To enable accelerated deployments of new energy technologies starting around 2020, and to ensure that innovative ideas continue to be explored, the public and private sectors will need to perform extensive research, development, and demonstration over the next decade.

Some Key Technology Pathways:• Coal and natural gas with CCS• Evolutionary nuclear power plants• Integrated gas-combined cycle and advanced

coal technologies to improve performance of coal-fired electricity generation

• Thermo-chemical conversion of coal and coal/biomass mixtures to liquid fuels

• Cellulosic ethanol• Advanced light-duty vehicles • 29

Key Technology Development Pathways

• Coal and natural gas with CCS

• Evolutionary nuclear power plants

• Integrated gas-combined cycle and advanced coal technologies to improve performance of coal-fired electricity generation

• Thermo-chemical conversion of coal and coal/biomass mixtures to liquid fuels

• Cellulosic ethanol

• Advanced light-duty vehicles

• 30

Key Research and Development Areas• Sustained R&D in improving energy efficiency

• Advanced biosciences

• Liquid fuels from renewable sources

• Advanced biomass

• Photovoltaic materials and manufacturing

• Advanced batteries and fuel cells

• Large-scale electricity storage

• Oil and gas extraction from shale and hydrates

• Advanced nuclear fuel cycles

• Geoengineering

• 31

Finding 8: Barriers to Accelerated Deployment A number of barriers could delay or even prevent the accelerated deployment of the energy-supply and end-use technologies described in this report. Policy and regulatory actions, as well as other incentives, will be required to overcome these barriers.

• 32

Barriers to Accelerated Deployment

• 33

• Lack of private sector investments for technology deployment

• Low turnover rate of capital-intensive infrastructure

• Resource and supply barriers• Public policy uncertainties• Coupling commercial deployment of energy

supply technologies with key supporting technologies

• Regional Differences• Lack of product-energy efficiency standards• Investment in new energy infrastructure

Some Closing Observations

• Progress between now and 2020 will largely determine outcomes for 2050.

• Creating additional technology options is essential.

• Turnover of existing capital stock is highly uncertain, especially in the electric power sector.

• 34

Historical Energy Policy ContextIn the United States energy policy is largely a derivative policy with its roots in economic, national security, and environmental policies and with shifting priorities over time among those policies.

economicvitality

national security

EnergyPolicy

climate change Energy Policy

• 35

36

Current Policy Context

―Energy and climate change legislation developing and moving in both House and Senate: ―H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and

Security Act of 2009 (“Waxman-Markey Bill”)

―S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (“Kerry-Boxer Bill”)

―S.1462, American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, (“Bingaman Bill”)

―Continuing implementation of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 highlights energy

―Energy and climate continues to be a high-priority Administration initiative

Policy Outlook for 2009-2010

• Causes for Optimism– Public awareness remains high– High Administration priority (after health care)– Three energy policy dimensions mostly aligned:

security, environment, and economy• Causes for Pessimism

– Financial crisis remains overwhelming– Scale of energy challenges is enormous– Easy to underestimate cost and complexity of

transformational change

• 37

America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation

National Research Council Committee on America’s Energy

Future

More information: Peter D. Blair, Ph.D.Executive DirectorDivision on Engineering & Physical SciencesThe National Academies500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001Email: pblair@nas.edu; Ph: 202-334-2400

• 38